About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
less than he offered before the election and also raises the money taken out of medicare and medicaid by $62 billion. how democrats or anybody could except that -- could accept that. the average folks here in america do not want to pay their fair share. they cannot argue the point that everybody has to give a little bit more to help us eliminate some of this debt and keep the country going in a positive direction. host: did you see the reaction from harry reid? caller: [laughter] host: let me read a portion of that. that is what the democratic leader in the senate had to say about yesterday's counterproposal put out by house republicans. we noted in this letter sent to the white house from the speaker also includes the signatures of paul ryan as well as eric cantor and the rest of his leadership team seems to be on board. here is the chairman of the republican study committee's statement. so here are the opening offers in "the washington post." time." there is the side-by-side in the "the washington times" this morning. a democratic caller, what do you think? caller: by listening at w
to stress the need for elected officials to act. for not only has the passage of time exacerbated some of the economic problems, it has revealed a perhaps equally-dangerous political one. our inability to grapple with pressing fiscal challenges represents nothing less than a crisis in our democratic order. compounding the instability and unpredictability in a volatile world. our propositions for this coalition are simple. the national security of the united states depends on its economic health. that health must be insured by averting the immediate crises and by laying the groundwork for a rigorous, long-term program of debt reduction, smart investment, economic growth and lower income inequality. in national security spending, we can target investments much more efficiently in response to threats that are evolving before our eyes. and resources need to be shifted toward nonmilitary elements of our national security posture. in the immediate term -- and by that i mean over the next four weeks -- we must avoid driving our country over the fiscal cliff. no partisan ideology is worth the
these negotiations. if he really was going to have an about face after the election and really concerned about the legacy, i actually disagree to a certain extent because i think that he thinks the first four years was his legacy. >> yeah. i think you're right to some extent. this is obviously we're speculating here. the president could, this might happen, might be a last minute razzle dazzle here, where he rushes in and they've already kind of agreed to a deal and he didn't get everything he wants, but he gets most of what he wants. he might envision something like that. i'm telling you, when i heard folks like lindsey graham over the weekend say, i don't think there is going to be a deal, that kind of stuck with me and maybe there won't be a deal. i'm not sure that's such a bad thing given what the alternatives are. >> steve: i'm sure you've heard or seen that apparently the republicans doomsday plan, if the talks collapse, allowed the vote on extending the middle tax class tax cuts, the senate passed that back in august, and the republicans would all vote present, then allow the democrats t
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3